Skip to main content

Table 4 Symmetrical index of surface electromyographic activity in the three postures

From: The role of the paraspinal muscles in the development of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis based on surface electromyography and radiographic analysis

Postures

Levels

Total cohort

(n = 27)

p

Group A (PEP-Cobb < RPP-Cobb)

(n = 13)

p

Group B (PEP-Cobb > RPP-Cobb)

(n = 14)

P

HSP

UEV

1.09(0.92, 1.92)

0.058

1.03 (0.81, 1.61)

0.422

1.21 (0.97, 2.01)

0.064

AV

1.24 (0.91, 2.50)

0.006*

1.05 (0.89, 1.67)

0.221

1.67 (0.98, 2.67)

0.016*

LEV

1.25 (1.01, 2.05)

0.002*

1.13 (1.00, 1.58)

0.023*

1.45 (0.97, 3.25)

0.019*

RPP

UEV

0.89 (0.74, 1.17)

0.471

0.86 (0.75, 1.20)

0.701

0.92 (0.67, 1.15)

0.433

AV

1.03(0.81, 1.15)

0.981

1.04 (0.81, 1.20)

0.753

0.94 (0.74, 1.28)

0.925

LEV

1.07 (0.92, 1.57)

0.130

1.12 (0.96, 1.39)

0.075

0.96 (0.76, 1.91)

0.638

PEP

UEV

1.23 (0.99, 1.47)

0.012*

1.24 (1.13, 1.51)

0.016*

1.15 (0.90, 1.34)

0.272

AV

1.55 (1.24, 1.93)

0.000*

1.30 (1.19,1.82)

0.001*

1.57 (1.24, 3.03)

0.002*

LEV

1.23 (1.02, 1.69)

0.001*

1.15 (0.99, 1.64)

0.046*

1.34 (1.10, 2.35)

0.004*

  1. Group A (PEP-Cobb < RPP-Cobb): patients in whom the Cobb angle in the prone extension position (PEP-Cobb) is smaller than or equal to the Cobb in the relaxed prone position (RPP-Cobb); Group B (PEP-Cobb > RPP-Cobb): patients in whom the PEP-Cobb is greater than the RPP-Cobb; HSP: habitual standing position; RPP: relaxed prone position; PEP: prone extension position; UEV: upper end vertebra; AV: apex vertebra; LEV: lower end vertebra; * p < 0.05, compared with 1